Maybe it was inevitable. I've been kicked off of HBL.
HBL, short for "Harry Binswanger's List", is a paid Objectivist e-mail discussion list. Given my love of Ayn Rand's philosophy, my respect for Harry Binswanger as a philosopher, teacher of Objectivism, and speaker, and the value I obtained being on the list (mostly reading other people's posts), I found this disappointing. HBL had been, at the time, the only Internet content service I was willing to pay for. ($120 per year subscription fee.)
Below is the sequence of events leading up to my expulsion from the group.
12/1/05
I e-mailed the following post to HBL:
Subject: Editing "Ayn Rand Answers"
Robert Mayhew writes on p. x of the Introduction to
"Ayn Rand Answers":
"I should mention, however, that some (but not much)
of my editing aimed to clarify wording that, if left
unaltered, might be taken to imply a viewpoint that
she explicitly rejected in her written works."
As much as I've enjoyed reading the book, this
sentence has lingered in my mind and detracted from
the overall enjoyment. Essentially, Mayhew is saying
that he has converted some unspecified number of
sentences from "X" to "not X". How many sentences? We
don't know. Which sentences? We don't know that,
either.
It's understandable that the spoken word may require
editing. But wouldn't either of the following editing
choices make more sense?
1. Include notation when words are added or removed,
at least and especially in cases like those described
above.
2. Choose not to include statements (or entire
questions and answers) when it appears Rand misspoke.
The idea that this type of editing was not identified
within the text itself is baffling to me. I didn't
choose to read the book because I thought it would
help to reinforce my understanding of Rand's written
works, but because I wanted to know what Ayn Rand
said. This sentence makes me question the extent to
which I'm getting that. It sure sounds like her, I
just wish I knew which words were Mayhew's.
12/2/05
I received the following e-mail from Harry Binswanger:
I may post this later, but not tonight.
Regards,
HB
12/3/05
I received the following e-mail from Robert Mayhew, editor of the book which I discussed in my post.
Send away.
RM
12/3/05
I sent the following e-mail to Robert Mayhew:
Perhaps you meant to send this to Dr. Binswanger? Or
are you asking me to send my post directly to you?
-Jason Roth
12/3/05
I received the following e-mail from Robert Mayhew:
Sorry for the terse response and thus the lack of clarity; I'm swamped at the moment. I meant that I have no problem with your submitting that to HBL. If HB posts it, I'll respond if I have the time.
Robert Mayhew
12/3/05
I forwarded Dr. Mayhew's e-mail to Dr. Binswanger. I didn't keep a copy of what I sent, so I can't quote it. (I wrote something along the lines of "I received this from Dr. Mayhew.")
12/8/05
My original post was made, verbatim, to HBL. It was clear to me that Dr. Binswanger had sent the post to Dr. Mayhew, asking his permission to post it.
12/8/05
I received the following e-mail, the first of several, from a professor and Ayn Rand Institute affiliated speaker. I am leaving out his name here.
Jason: I think your point is very well taken. Editing AR is not a good idea.
12/9/05
I received the following e-mail from Harry Binswanger:
Subject: Membership Cancellation
Dear Mr. Roth,
I just was referred to your website:
[link]
which is disgusting, disgraceful, and an act of desecration. Your HBL membership is cancelled. You will be sent, via PayPal, a refund of $70, for the unused portion of your HBL membership.
12/10/05
I sent the following e-mail to Harry Binswanger:
Dr. Binswanger,
I actually sent you the link to that list a few years
ago, and you responded similarly. I had tried to
discuss it with you at the time, but you opted not to.
I am disappointed that you have the opinion you do,
but since I have seen you speak in person multiple
times and have had so much respect for your knowledge
of Objectivism, your ability as a lecturer, and what I
believed to be your fair-mindedness, I want to
communicate a couple points.
I understand that there are a nearly limitless number
of scumbags out there who denounce, ridicule, smear,
and otherwise degrade and denounce Objectivism. I am
not one of those people. That list that offended you
is not an example of such degradation. Objectivism
(and sex) is the *subject* of the humor in that list,
not the object.
A half a dozen or so years back, I was a member of HBL
for about a year. I had made a recommendation for the
movie "Dangerous Beauty", and you made the correct
guess that I was under the age of 30. You said
something to the effect of: the amount or depiction of
sex in the movie was too lewd to appeal to anyone of a
generation older. I don't know if this is true, but I
believe it's true of your own tastes or sensibilities
regarding sex.
That list that I wrote clearly has the potential to
offend, considering that some people may believe that
neither explicit sex nor explicit Objectivism should
be anywhere near the proximity of humor. However, in
reality, the humor in that list, if one identifies it,
derives from the *context* in which the Objectivist
ideas and statements are placed; i.e., the bedroom. It
would be irreverent of Objectivism only if the ideas
themselves were derided, or if I was essentially
pointing at them and saying "Look at this Objectivist
idea; isn't it ridiculous?" But I don't do that. I
say: "Look at this person saying this idea in this
situation; isn't *that* ridiculous?" Again,
Objectivism is the subject, not the object, of the
humor. This is the primary distinction to be made.
The timing of the person referring you to that link,
right after my post in which I question Dr. Mayhew's
editing of Ayn Rand's words in "Ayn Rand Answers",
tells me something about the person who sent you the
link. This person chose to avoid responding to my
arguments, and instead went after me. This is gutless,
evasive, and takes the ad hominem to a new level. To
your credit, you allowed my comments to be posted in
the first place.
Incidentally, two people have e-mailed me after my
post, including someone who has been an ARI speaker,
to privately voice their agreement with my central
question: why edit Ayn Rand's words and not tell us
what was changed, or even more broadly: why edit Ayn
Rand's words at all? This is a legitimate question.
My website appeals to high school and college
students. People have discovered Objectivism *because*
of my website. Examples include a regular visitor who
found a link to ARI on my website, and a young woman
to whom I mailed a free copy of The Fountainhead, who
read it (along with her boyfriend), then wrote to me
thanking me and telling me how much they enjoyed it.
My website, to quote a friend of mine, is a force for
good. It may not be for you, but it is for others, and
I provide humor and sentiment which they cannot find
elsewhere.
I cannot convince you to like the list. I hope to
convince you that it is neither "disgraceful" nor an
"act of desecration". "Disgusting" I can live with.
Regards,
Jason
12/20/05
As of today, I have received no response from Dr. Binswanger.
Disappointing.
[Note: I have since learned that it was Mayhew himself who sent the link to Binswanger, and he did, I understand, respond to my post on HBL after I was kicked off. Therefore, it was harsh and premature for me to use the words "gutless" and "evasive" about the (at the time) anonymous person who sent Binswanger the link. I have not seen Mayhew's post, and it still seems to be irrelevant at best, or an ad hominem at worst. As most people who read this site know, I don't have a problem with the occasional ad hominem. But it is somewhat curious that in the context of a guy attempting to defend his work against a legitimate question, he would link to a page written by his questioner five years ago on a wholy separate topic.]
